Just a blogger. Since 2003.

Menu

Shocking: House rep calls President a liar on the House floor – twice

Who said it?

The Republicans are worried that we can’t pay for insuring an additional 10 million children. They sure don’t care about finding $200 billion to fight the illegal war in Iraq. Where you going to get that money. You gonna tell us lies like you’re telling us today? Is that how you’re going to fund the war. You don’t have enough money to fund the war or children. But you’re going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the President’s amusement.

[…]

But the President Bush’s statements about children’s health shouldn’t be taken any more seriously than his lies about the war in Iraq. The truth is that Bush just likes to blow things up in Iraq, in the United States, and in Congress.

There was a heck of a lot of things more offensive about that little rant than the fact that President Bush was called a liar twice, eh?

As to the answer to the question “who said it?” None other than Rep. Pete Stark-raving-mad, back in 2007 (via GP).

Stark attended a town hall meeting on health care in Fremont, Calif. over the weekend. A senior citizen lit into various Obamacare talking points and told Rep. Stark: “Don’t pee on my leg and then tell me it’s raining.”

At 1:38 of the video clip, Stark grabbed the microphone and lashed back: “I wouldn’t dignify you by peeing on your leg. It wouldn’t be worth wasting the urine.”

Make sure to check out the video clip at Michelle’s link. BTW, this isn’t the first time Stark’s gone nuts over a political constituent daring to disagree with him.

BTW, the liberal Obama-loving McClatchy news outlet reported today that South Carolina’s tourism offices are being “flooded” with calls from people across the country who are saying they will not visit SC again because of Joe Wilson’s outburst. Two things: 1) how many of these people are actually rabid liberal activists dressed up in “concerned citizen” clothing and 2) if these idiots are going to be that petty, what makes them think most South Carolinians would want them to vacation there anyway?

If “You lie” qualifies as “hateful rhetoric”, then Stark’s lunatic rant should qualify for a gold medal in the [O]lympic event. Did Democrats, enjoying the first year of their majority, vote to censure Stark for calling the President a liar — or more egregiously, for claiming that Bush enjoyed seeing Americans and Iraqis die for his “amusement”? No, although Stark did get a warning from the presider after Republicans complained repeatedly about his insults.

If Pelosi wants to censure Wilson, then she has unfinished business from 2007 to attend first.

But then that would demonstrate honesty and consistency, which the House leadership has demonstrated time and time again that it simply does not have. This whole charade is simply a pathetic exercise in political posturing, and one that I hope backfires on House Democrats in 2010.

Hey, I sure wish some of our state politicians would say something rude against The Messiah…we could stand to have less idiot tourists around. The one silver lining in the down economy is that there have been fewer idiots backing up the expressway these days or wandering around lost to have to dodge.

If it was reported by the Dems or mainstream media, I would be suspect about the accuracy of how many actually called the SC tourism office. However, I saw the link on Mark Levin’s website and I donated money to Wilson. After 8 years of horrible rancor slung at the previous President, have these people no shame?

Potentially 435 members of the House of Representatives and 100 Members of the Senate heard the President claim his plan could provide health care for an additional 15 million people without additional cost to the taxpayer or rationing. One Representative had the nerve to blurt out what others should have been thinking.
POTUS had 238 days since Jan 20 to present his plan to the public. But like “the Emperor’s New Clothes,” there is no magic thread that only a few can see. There is no plan and Wilson called it as he saw it.
Good for Wilson.

Disrupting the president’s speech was rude, but considering the treatment our former president got for 8 years it was in fact pretty tame.

However, the action in the House today is about a rule about dissing the POTUS or VP. It has nothing to do with the fact Duh-1’s speech was interrupted. If that was the cause for the action the entire jackass caucus should be taken to task for such behavior toward the former pres.

And if the real question is decorum, then why is Nazi Pelousy still a member of the House?

So, normally I agree with the majority of what you have to say. This time I think we’ve come to somewhat different conclusions. Yes the media is politicizing this a lot more than it should but keeping it honest would be too much to ask from them.

However, I DO think that any member of congress interrupting a formal presidential speech is breaking the “rules” of the the assembly. Much as if someone were to interrupt the person who has the floor without recognition of the chair. It is a Robert’s Rules sort of violation that should result in a censure.

I’m not familiar enough with the process to know even where to look for these rules but I’d like to see someone point out exactly what rule he’s broken. However, taking it at my limited understand of the congressional rules of order I can see what the root cause of the censure may be.

The wording of the censure may reflect on how politically motivated it was. Currently the liberals are focusing on WHAT was said as opposed to when/where it was said which belies their true intention.

There are many blogs like this one comparing what he said with what liberals have said about Bush. Surely they’ve said worse, I don’t argue that point! However, have they interrupted a formal speech to the congress breaking the rules of order? That’s a different question altogether.

I’m also not saying he was wrong, I totally agree with him, and it may have been the only way he felt he could voice his opinion. However, rules of order should be taken seriously. If the government is truly to be governed by the Rule of Law, our feelings about WHAT he said can’t interfere with the fact that he voiced it at the wrong time, in the wrong place.

Wayne’s analysis is pretty spot-on. And unfortunately (for a lot of reasons) Wilson’s outburst was also the most honest thing said this entire year in the hallowed chamber of the House. Matter of fact, it could quite possibly be the only honest thing of any consequence spoken in that chamber in years.